mcp-validation-server
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-validation-server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceDeterministic verification for AI-generated analysis. Reconciliation, consistency and Excel-integrity checks that stop the line when the numbers don't add up.43 PyPI1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes data validation as tools so an AI agent can check whether data is actually correct before using it, scoring CSV files with per-row problem details, catching impossible dates, inferring schemas, and generating readable reports.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables language models to run data-quality checks and profiling on local files, using dbt-style assertions like not_null, unique, relationships, and accepted_values.MIT
- FlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to perform financial reconciliation with a deterministic proof engine: intake files, match transactions, verify proofs, resolve exceptions, and sign off on balanced journals under the user's authority.21-
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceEnables auditing of extracted balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow reports by reconstructing complex document tables and verifying mathematical consistency and formula balancing. It also performs cross-reference resolution and sensitive PII redaction, returning structured matrices and validation telemetry over MCP to clients like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and Windsurf.47MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to validate CSV exports against schemas, infer schemas from example files, profile datasets, and diff before/after exports for lab/LIMS data-quality checks.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct data-quality operation: contract-based row validation, arithmetic reconciliation, entity counting, and duplicate detection. The only overlap is that count_distinct and duplicate_report both consume rows+key, but their stated purposes (counting vs. reviewing suspects) are clearly separated by the descriptions.
The set mixes conventions: validate_rows and count_distinct follow a verb_noun pattern, while reconcile is a bare verb and duplicate_report is noun_noun. All are readable and snake_case, but there is no single predictable rule.
Four tools is well-scoped for a tabular data-validation server; each covers a distinct, classic quality check (row validity, closure, distinctness, duplication) and none feels redundant or padded.
The surface covers the core data-quality checks and is deliberately read-only, with clear reporting rather than repair. A gap remains for cross-column/cross-table consistency (e.g. referential integrity between datasets) and schema inference, but core workflows are fully addressed.